Download slides - Yisong Yue

Practical Online Retrieval Evaluation
SIGIR 2011 Tutorial
Filip Radlinski (Microsoft)
Yisong Yue (CMU)
Retrieval Evaluation Goals
Baseline Ranking Algorithm
My Research Project
Which is better?
Goals: Practicality, Correctness, Efficiency
Retrieval Evaluation Goals
• Practicality
– If I’m a researcher with a small group, can I really use
this evaluation method in practice?
• Correctness
– If my evaluation says that my ranking method is better
than a baseline, would users really agree?
– If my evaluation says that my ranking method isn’t
better than the baseline, is that true?
• Efficiency
– I want to make the best use of my resources: How do
I best trade off time/cost and sensitivity to changes?
Evaluation
Two types of retrieval evaluation:
• “Offline evaluation”
Ask experts or users to explicitly evaluate your
retrieval system. This dominates evaluation today.
• “Online evaluation”
See how normal users interact with your retrieval
system when just using it.
Do we need online evaluation?
• Traditional offline evaluation: The Cranfield approach
– Sample some real representative queries
– Run them against a number of systems
– Judge the relevance of (top) documents versus (inferred)
information needs
• More often: Assume that somebody else has done this
– Many groups have: TREC, OHSUMED, CLEF, LETOR, …
• Basic evaluation method:
– For my new approach, rank a collection & combine the
judgments into a summary number. Hope it goes up
Do we need online evaluation?
• The Cranfield approach is a good idea when
– Query set is representative of cases that my research tries
to address
– Judges can give accurate judgments in my setting
– I trust a particular summary value (e.g., MAP, NDCG, ERR)
to accurately reflects my users’ perceptions
• If these aren’t the case: Even if my approach is valid,
the number might not go up
– Or worse: The number might go up despite my approach
producing worse rankings in practice
Challenges with Offline Evaluation
• Do users and judges agree on relevance?
– Particularly difficult for personalized search
– Particularly difficult for specialized documents
• It’s expensive and slow to collect new data
– Cheaper crowdsourcing (this morning) is sometimes an alternative
• Ambiguous queries are particularly hard to judge realistically
– Which intent is most popular? Which others are important?
• Judges need to correctly appreciate uncertainty
– If you want to diversify web results to satisfy multiple intents, how do
judges know what is most likely to be relevant?
• How do you identify when relevance changes?
– Temporal changes: Document changes; Query intent changes
• Summary aggregate score must agree with users
– Do real users agree with MAP@1000? NDCG@5? ERR?
Challenges with Offline Evaluation
Challenges with Offline Evaluation
• Query: “introduction to ranking boosted decision trees”
• Document:
…
Challenges with Offline Evaluation
• Query: “ski jump world record”
• Document:
Tutorial Goals
• Provide an overview of online evaluation
– Online metrics: What works when (especially if you’re an academic)
– Interpreting user actions at the Document or Ranking level
– Experiment Design: Opportunities, biases and challenges
• Get you started in obtaining your own online data
– How to realistically “be the search engine”
– End-to-End: Design, Implementation, Recruitment and Analysis
– Overview of alternative approaches
• Present interleaving for retrieval evaluation
–
–
–
–
Describe one particular online evaluation approach in depth
How it works, why it works and what to watch out for
Provide a reference implementation
Describe a number of open challenges
• Quick overview of using your online data for learning
Outline
• Part 1: Overview of Online Evaluation
– Things to measure (e.g. clicks, mouse movements)
– How to interpret feedback (absolute vs. relative)
– What works well in a small-scale setting?
• Part 2: End-to-End, From Design to Analysis
(Break during Part 2)
• Part 3: Open Problems in Click Evaluation
• Part 4: Connection to Optimization & Learning
Online Evaluation
Key Assumption: Observable user behavior reflects relevance
• Implicit in this: Users behave rationally
– Real users have a goal when they use an IR system
• They aren’t just bored, typing and clicking pseudo-randomly
– They consistently work towards that goal
• An irrelevant result doesn’t draw most users away from their goal
– They aren’t trying to confuse you
• Most users are not trying to provide malicious data to the system
Online Evaluation
Key Assumption: Observable user behavior reflects relevance
• This assumption gives us “high fidelity”
Real users replace the judges: No ambiguity in information need;
Users actually want results; Measure performance on real queries
• But introduces a major challenge
We can’t train the users: How do we know when they are happy?
Real user behavior requires careful design and evaluation
• And a noticeable drawback
Data isn’t trivially reusable later (more on that later)
What is Online Data?
• A variety of data can describe online behavior:
– Urls, Queries and Clicks
• Browsing Stream: Sequence of URLs users visit
• In IR: Queries, Results and Clicks
– Mouse movement
• Clicks, selections, hover
• The line between online and offline is fuzzy
– Purchase decisions: Ad clicks to online purchases
– Eye tracking
– Offline evaluation using historical online data
Online Evaluation Designs
• We have some key choices to make:
1. Document Level or Ranking Level?
Document Level
Ranking Level
I want to know about the documents
I am mostly interested in the rankings
Similar to the Cranfield approach, I’d like
to find out the quality of each document.
I’m trying to evaluate retrieval functions. I
don’t need to be able to drill down to
individual documents.
2. Absolute or Relative?
Absolute Judgments
Relative Judgments
I want a score on an absolute scale
I am mostly interested in a comparison
Similar to the Cranfield approach, I’d like a
number that I can compare to many
methods, over time.
It’s enough if I know which document, or
which ranking, is better. Its not necessary
to know the absolute value.
Online Evaluation Designs
•
Document-Level feedback
•
•
•
E.g., click indicates document is relevant
Document-level feedback often used to define
retrieval evaluation metrics.
Ranking-level feedback
•
•
E.g., click indicates result-set is good
Directly define evaluation metric for a result-set.
Experiment Design
Lab Study
Ask users to come to the lab, where
they perform a specific task while you
record online behavior.
• Controlled Task
• Controlled Environment
Example: Users sit in front of an eye tracker while finding the answers to
questions using a specific search engine [Granka et al, SIGIR ’04]
Controlled Task Field Study
Ask volunteers to complete a specific
task using your system but on their
computer.
• Controlled Task
• Uncontrolled Environment
Example: Crowdsourcing tasks (tutorial this morning)
General Usage Field Study
Ask volunteers to use your system for
whatever they find it useful for over a
longer period of time
• Uncontrolled Task
• Uncontrolled Environment
Example: Track cursor position on web search results page [Huang et al, CHI ‘11]
Concerns for Evaluation
• Key Concerns:
– Practicality
– Correctness
– Efficiency (cost)
• Practical for academic scale studies
–
–
–
–
Keep it blind: Small studies are the norm
Must measure something that real users do often
Can’t hurt relevance too much (but that’s soft)
Cannot take too long (too many queries)
Interpretation Choices
Absolute
Relative
Document Level
Click Rate,
Cascade Models,
…
Click-Skip,
FairPairs
Ranking Level
Abandonment,
Reciprocal Rank,
Time to Click,
PSkip,
…
Side by Side,
Interleaving
Absolute Document Judgments
• Can we simply interpret clicked results as relevant?
– This would provide a relevance dataset, after which we run
a Cranfield style evaluation
• A variety of biases make this difficult
– Position Bias:
Users are more inclined to examine and click on higher-ranked
results
– Contextual Bias:
Whether users click on a result depends on other nearby results
– Attention Bias:
Users click more on results which draw attention to themselves
Position Bias
Hypothesis:
Order of presentation influences where users
look, but not where they click!
Probability of Click
60%
More relevant
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
normal
2
1 swapped 2
Normal:
Swapped:
Users
appear
to
have
trust
in
Google’s
ability to
Google’s order
Order of top 2
of results rank the most relevant result first. results swapped
→
[Joachims et al. 2005, 2007]
What Results do Users View/Click?
Time spent in each result by frequency of doc selected
160
# times rank selected
1
# times result selected
0.9
time spent in abstract
0.8
140
0.7
120
0.6
100
0.5
80
0.4
60
0.3
40
0.2
20
0.1
0
mean time (s)
180
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Rank of result
[Joachims et al. 2005, 2007]
Which Results are Viewed Before Click?
Clicked Link
Probability Result was Viewed
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank of Result
8
9
10
→ Users typically do not look at lower results before they
click (except maybe the next result)
[Joachims et al. 2005, 2007]
Quality-of-Context Bias
Hypothesis:
Clicking depends only on the result itself, but
not on other results.
Normal + Swapped
Reversed
→
Rank of clicked link as
sorted by relevance judges
2.67
3.27
Reversed:
Users
click on less relevant results, if they are
Top 10 results in
embedded
irrelevant results.
reversedbetween
order.
[Joachims et al. 2005, 2007]
Correcting for Position
(Absolute / Document-Level)
• How to model position bias?
Position Models
Cascade Models
Clicks depend on relevance and position
Users examine ranking sequentially
Each rank position has some independent
probability of being examined.
Users scan down the ranking until finding a
relevant document to click on.
• What is the primary modeling goal?
Insight into User Behavior
Model parameters can be used to
interpret how users behave
Estimating Relevance
Directly estimate the relevance of
documents (or quality of rankings)
Also: Some joint models do both!
“Position bias generally affects users X
amount at rank 1”. Indirectly enables
relevance estimation of documents.
“A clicked document corresponds to X%
probability of being relevant”. Does not
directly give insight on user behavior.
Examination Hypothesis
(Position Model)
• Users can only click on documents they examine
– Independent probability of examining each rank
Pr (Click =1| doc, rank ) = Pr ( Reldoc =1) ´ Pr ( Erank =1)
– Choose parameters to maximize probability of
observing click log
– Straightforward
to recover prob. of relevance
A
C
– ExtensionsPrpossible
2008) B E3 )
RC ER1&A)E(Piwowarski
1ranking(e.g.
=Dupret
1(
)
(
A E2 ) (1- RC
1 ) ( RB
B
A
– Requires multiple clicks on the same
C
B
document/query
pair (at different rank positions
is helpful)
[Richardson et al. 2007; Craswell et al. 2008; Dupret & Piwowarski 2008]
Logistic Position Model
(Position Model)
Pr (Click =1| doc, rank ) =
1
1+ exp (-a doc - brank )
– Choose parameters to maximize probability of
observing click log
– Removes independence assumption
– Straightforward to recover relevance (α)
• (Interpret as increase in log odds)
– Requires multiple clicks on the same
document/query pair (at different rank positions
[Craswell et al. 2008; Chapelle & Zhang 2009]
helpful)
Relative Click Frequency
(Position Model)
Can also use ratio of click frequencies
• called Clicks Over Expected Clicks (COEC) [Zhang & Jones 2007]
[Agichtein et al 2006a; Zhang & Jones 2007; Chapelle & Zhang 2009]
Cascade Model
• Assumes users examines results top-down
1. Examines result
2. If relevant: click, end session
3. Else: go to next result, return to step 1
Pr (Click j =1) = Pr ( rel j =1) Õ (1- Pr ( Reli =1))
i< j
– Probability of click depends on relevance of
documents ranked above.
– Also requires multiple query/doc impressions
[Craswell et al. 2008]
Cascade Model Example
Pr (Click j =1) = Pr ( rel j =1) Õ (1- Pr ( Reli =1))
i< j
500 users typed a query
• 0 click on result A in rank 1
• 100 click on result B in rank 2
• 100 click on result C in rank 3
Cascade Model says:
• 0 of 500 clicked A  relA = 0
• 100 of 500 clicked B  relB = 0.2
• 100 of remaining 400 clicked C  relC = 0.25
Dynamic Bayesian Network
(Extended Cascade Model)
• Like cascade model, but with added steps
1. Examines result at rank j
2. If attracted to result at rank j:
•
•
Clicks on result
If user is satisfied, ends session
3. Otherwise, decide whether to abandon session
4. If not, j  j + 1, go to step 1
– Can model multiple clicks per session
– Distinguishes clicks from relevance
– Requires multiple query/doc impressions
[Chapelle & Zhang 2009]
Dynamic Bayesian Network
(Extended Cascade Model)
[Chapelle & Zhang 2009]
Performance Comparison
• Predicting clickthrough rate (CTR) on top result
• Models trained on query logs of large-scale search engine
[Chapelle & Zhang 2009]
Estimating DCG Change Using Clicks
• Model the relevance of each doc as random variable
– I.e., multinomial distribution of relevance levels
– X = random variable
– aj = relevance level (e.g., 1-5)
– c = click log for query q
– Can be used to measure P(ΔDCG < 0)
– Requires expert labeled judgments
[Carterette & Jones 2007]
Estimating DCG Change Using Clicks
• Plotting accuracy of predicting better ranking vs model
confidence, i.e. P(ΔDCG < 0)
• Trained using Yahoo! sponsored search logs with relevance
judgments from experts
• About 28,000 expert judgments on over 2,000 queries
[Carterette & Jones 2007]
Absolute Document Judgments (Summary)
• Joint model of user behavior and relevance
– E.g., how often a user examines results at rank 3
• Straightforward to infer relevance of documents
– Need to convert document relevance to evaluation metric
• Requires additional assumptions
– E.g., cascading user examination assumption
• Requires multiple impressions of doc/query pair
– A special case of “Enhancing Web Search by Mining Search
and Browse Logs” tutorial this morning
– Often impractical at small scales
Absolute Ranking-Level Judgments
• Document-level feedback requires converting
judgments to evaluation metric (of a ranking)
• Ranking-level judgments directly define such a
metric
Some Absolute Metrics
Abandonment Rate
Reformulation Rate
Queries per Session
Clicks per Query
Click rate on first result
Max Reciprocal Rank
Time to first click
Time to last click
% of viewed documents skipped (pSkip)
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2009]
Absolute Ranking-Level Judgments
• Benefits
– Often much simpler than document click models
– Directly measure ranking quality: Simpler task
requires less data, hopefully
• Downsides
– Can’t really explain the outcome:
• Never get examples of inferred ranking quality
• Different queries may naturally differ on metrics: counting
on the average being informative
– Evaluations over time need not necessarily be
comparable. Need to ensure:
• Done over the same user population
• Performed with the same query distribution
• Performed with the same document distribution
Monotonicity Assumption
• Consider two sets of results: A & B
– A is high quality
– B is medium quality
• Which will get more clicks from users, A or B?
– A has more good results: Users may be more likely to click
when presented results from A.
– B has fewer good results: Users may need to click on more
results from ranking B to be satisfied.
• Need to test with real data
– If either direction happens consistently, with a reasonable
amount of data, we can use this to evaluate online
Testing Monotonicity on ArXiv.org
• This is an academic search engine, similar to ACM
digital library but mostly for physics.
• Real users looking for real documents.
• Relevance direction known by construction
ORIG > SWAP2 > SWAP4
• ORIG: Hand-tuned ranking function
• SWAP2: ORIG with 2 pairs swapped
• SWAP4: ORIG with 4 pairs swapped
ORIG > FLAT > RAND
Do all pairwise tests:
Each retrieval function
used half the time.
• ORIG: Hand-tuned ranking function, over many fields
• FLAT: No field weights
• RAND : Top 10 of FLAT randomly reordered shuffled
• Evaluation on 3500 x 6 queries
[Radlinski et al. 2008]
Absolute Metrics
Name
Description
Hypothesized Change
as Quality Falls
Abandonment Rate
% of queries with no click
Increase
Reformulation Rate
% of queries that are followed
by reformulation
Increase
Queries per Session
Session = no interruption of
more than 30 minutes
Increase
Clicks per Query
Number of clicks
Decrease
Clicks @ 1
Clicks on top results
Decrease
pSkip [Wang et al ’09]
Probability of skipping
Increase
Max Reciprocal Rank*
1/rank for highest click
Decrease
Mean Reciprocal Rank*
Mean of 1/rank for all clicks
Decrease
Time to First Click*
Seconds before first click
Increase
Time to Last Click*
Seconds before final click
Decrease
(*) only queries with at least one click count
Evaluation of Absolute Metrics on ArXiv.org
2.5
2
1.5
1
ORIG
FLAT
RAND
ORIG
SWAP2
SWAP4
0.5
0
[Radlinski et al. 2008]
Evaluation of Absolute Metrics on ArXiv.org
• How well do statistics reflect the known quality order?
Evaluation Metric
Consistent
(weak)
Inconsistent
(weak)
Consistent Inconsistent
(strong)
(strong)
Abandonment Rate
4
2
2
0
Clicks per Query
4
2
2
0
Clicks @ 1
4
2
4
0
pSkip
5
1
2
0
Max Reciprocal Rank
5
1
3
0
Mean Reciprocal Rank
5
1
2
0
Time to First Click
4
1
0
0
Time to Last Click
3
3
1
0
[Radlinski et al. 2008;
Chapelle et al. under review]
Evaluation of Absolute Metrics on ArXiv.org
• How well do statistics reflect the known quality order?
Evaluation Metric
Consistent
(weak)
Inconsistent
(weak)
Consistent Inconsistent
(strong)
(strong)
4
2
2
Absolute Metric Summary
Abandonment Rate
0
Clicks per Query
4
• None of
0
Clicks @ 1
0
2
the absolute
metrics2 reliably
4
reflect4expected2order.
pSkip
5
1
2
• Most differences
not significant
with
5
1
3
thousands of queries.
Mean Reciprocal Rank 5
1
2
Max Reciprocal Rank
Time to First 
Click(These)
4
absolute1metrics not0 suitable
Time to Last Clickfor ArXiv-sized
3
3
1 with
search
engines
these retrieval quality differences.
0
0
0
0
0
[Radlinski et al. 2008;
Chapelle et al. under review]
Relative Comparisons
• What if we ask the simpler question directly:
Which of two retrieval methods is better?
• Interpret clicks as preference judgments
– between two (or more) alternatives
U(f1) > U(f2)  pairedComparisonTest(f1, f2) > 0
• Can we control for variations in particular user/query?
• Can we control for presentation bias?
• Need to embed comparison in a ranking
Analogy to Sensory Testing
• Suppose we conduct taste experiment:
vs
– Want to maintain a natural usage context
• Experiment 1: absolute metrics
– Each participant’s refrigerator randomly stocked
• Either Pepsi or Coke (anonymized)
– Measure how much participant drinks
• Issues:
– Calibration (person’s thirst, other confounding variables…)
– Higher variance
Analogy to Sensory Testing
• Suppose we conduct taste experiment:
– Want to maintain natural usage context
vs
A
• Experiment 2: relative metrics
– Each participant’s refrigerator randomly stocked
• Some Pepsi (A) and some Coke (B)
– Measure how much participant drinks of each
• (Assumes people drink rationally!)
• Issues solved:
– Controls for each individual participant
– Lower variance
B
A Taste Test in Retrieval:
Document Level Comparisons
Is probably
better than that
This
[Joachims, 2002]
A Taste Test in Retrieval:
Document Level Comparisons
• There are other alternatives
– Click > Earlier Click
– Last Click > Skip Above
–…
• How accurate are they?
[Joachims et al, 2005]
A Taste Test in Retrieval:
Document Level Comparisons
• We can only observe that lower > higher
• So randomly reorder pairs of documents
Half the time, show:
The other half, show:
Document 1
Document 2
Document 2
What happens
Document 1
more often?
[Radlinski & Joachims ‘07]
A Taste Test in Retrieval:
Document Level Comparisons
• We can only observe that lower > higher
• So randomly reorder pairs of documents
Half the time, show:
The other half, show:
Document 1
Document 2
Document 2
What happens
Document 1
more often?
[Radlinski & Joachims ‘07]
• Hybrid approach: Convert pairs to absolute
[Agrawal et al ‘09]
Document-Level Comparisons(Summary)
• Derive pairwise judgments between documents
• Often more reliable than absolute judgments
– Also supported by experiments on collecting expert judgments
[Carterette et al. 2008]
• Benefits: reliable & easily reusable
– Gives “correct” (in expectation) feedback
– Easy to convert into training data for standard ML algorithms
• Limitations: still a biased sample
– Distribution of feedback slanted towards top of rankings
– Need to turn document-level feedback into evaluation metric
A Taste Test in Retrieval:
Ranking Level Comparisons
• What about getting a preference between rankings?
• Not natural (even getting rid of the “vote” button)
• If you’re an expert, maybe you can guess which is which
e.g. [Thomas & Hawking, 2008]
Paired Comparisons
• How to create a natural (and blind) paired test?
– Side by side disrupts natural usage context
– Need to embed comparison test inside a single ranking
Team Draft Interleaving
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ranking A
Ranking B
Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
1. Napa Country, California – Wikipedia
www.napavalley.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
Napa Valley Wineries - Plan your wine...
2. Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
www.napavalley.com
Napa Valley College
3. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Been There | Tips | Napa Valley
4. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/16681 Presented Rankingwww.napalinks.com
Napa Valley Wineries and1.
Wine
5. for
NapaValley.org
Napa Valley – The authority
lodging...
www.napavintners.com
www.napavalley.org
www.napavalley.com
Napa Country, California –2.Wikipedia
The Napa Valley Marathon
Napa Country, California6.
– Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
www.napavalleymarathon.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
3. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
4. Napa Valley Wineries – Plan your wine...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
5. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
A
B
www.napalinks.com
6. Napa Valley College
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
7 NapaValley.org
[Radlinski et al. 2008]
www.napavalley.org
Team Draft Interleaving
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ranking A
Ranking B
Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
1. Napa Country, California – Wikipedia
www.napavalley.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
Napa Valley Wineries - Plan your wine...
2. Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
www.napavalley.com
Napa Valley College
3. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Been There | Tips | Napa Valley
4. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/16681 Presented Rankingwww.napalinks.com
Napa Valley Wineries and1.
Wine
5. for
NapaValley.org
Napa Valley – The authority
lodging...
www.napavintners.com
www.napavalley.org
www.napavalley.com
Napa Country, California –2.Wikipedia
The Napa Valley Marathon
Napa Country, California6.
– Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
www.napavalleymarathon.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
3. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Tie!
4. Napa Valley Wineries – Plan your wine...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
5. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.napalinks.com
6. Napa Balley College
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
7 NapaValley.org
[Radlinski et al. 2008]
www.napavalley.org
Scoring Interleaved Evaluations
• Clicks credited to “owner” of result
– Ranking r1
– Ranking r2
– Shared
r1
r2
A
A
B
A
B
C
B
E
D
C
F
F
– A & B share top K results when they have identical results
at each rank 1…K
– Ranking with more credits wins
Simple Example
• Two users, Alice & Bob
– Alice clicks a lot,
– Bob clicks very little.
• Two retrieval functions, r1 & r2
– r1 > r2
• Two ways of evaluating:
– Run r1 & r2 independently,
measure absolute metrics
– Interleave r1 & r2, measure
pairwise preference
Simple Example
• Two users, Alice & Bob
– Alice clicks a lot,
– Bob clicks very little.
• Two retrieval functions, r1 & r2
– r1 > r2
• Two ways of evaluating:
– Run r1 & r2 independently,
measure absolute metrics
– Interleave r1 & r2, measure
pairwise preference
• Absolute metrics:
User
Ret Func
#clicks
Alice r2
5
Bob
1
r1
Higher chance of falsely
concluding that r2 > r1
• Interleaving:
User
#clicks on r1 #clicks on r2
Alice 4
1
Bob
0
1
Challenges (Calibration)
• No longer need to calibrate clickthrough rate
– across users or across queries
• More sensitive
– Fewer queries to achieve statistical significance
Will see empirical evaluations later.
Challenges (Presentation Bias)
• Interleaved ranking preserves rank fairness
– Random clicker clicks on both rankings equally
– Biased clicker clicks on both rankings equally
• More reliable
– More consistently identifies better ranking
Will see empirical evaluations later.
Benefits & Drawbacks of Interleaving
• Benefits
– A more direct way to elicit user preferences
– A more direct way to perform retrieval evaluation
– Deals with issues of position bias and calibration
• Drawbacks
– Reusability: Can only elicit pairwise preferences for
specific pairs of ranking functions
• Similar to some offline settings [Carterette & Smucker, 2007]
– Benchmark: No absolute number for benchmarking
– Interpretation: Unable to interpret much at the
document-level, or about user behavior
Quantitative Analysis
• Can we quantify how well Interleaving performs?
– Compared with Absolute Ranking-level Metrics
– Compared with Offline Judgments
• How reliable is it?
– Does Interleaving identify the better retrieval function?
• How sensitive is it?
– How much data is required to achieve a target p-value?
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Experimental Setup
• Selected 4-6 pairs of ranking functions to compare
– Known retrieval quality, by construction or by judged evaluation
• Collected click logs in two experimental conditions
– Each ranking function by itself to measure absolute metrics
– Interleaving of the two ranking functions
• Three search platforms used
– arXiv.org
– Yahoo!
– Bing
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Comparison with Absolute Metrics (Online)
ArXiv.org Pair 2
Probability
Agreement
p-value
ArXiv.org Pair 1
Query set size
•Experiments on arXiv.org
•About 1000 queries per experiment
•Interleaving is more sensitive and more reliable
Clicks@1 diverges in
preference estimate
Interleaving achieves
significance faster
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Comparison with Absolute Metrics (Online)
Yahoo! Pair 2
Probability
Agreement
p-value
Yahoo! Pair 1
Query set size
•Experiments on Yahoo! (much smaller differences in relevance)
•Large scale experiment
•Interleaving is sensitive and more reliable (~7K queries for significance)
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Comparative Summary
0.8
Abandonment
Clicks / Query
0.7
p-value
Clicks @ 1
0.6
pSkip
0.5
Max Recip. Rank
Mean Recip. Rank
0.4
Time to First Click
Time to Last Click
0.3
Interleaving
0.2
0.1
0
Pair1
Pair3
Pair4
Pair5
Pair6
•Comparison
ofPair2
arXiv.org
experiments
with~150
queries
•Results on Yahoo! qualitatively similar
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Comparative Summary
Method
Consistent
(weak)
Inconsistent
(weak)
Consistent Inconsistent
(strong)
(strong)
Abandonment Rate
4
2
2
0
Clicks per Query
4
2
2
0
Clicks @ 1
4
2
4
0
pSkip
5
1
2
0
Max Reciprocal Rank
5
1
3
0
Mean Reciprocal Rank
5
1
2
0
Time to First Click
4
1
0
0
Time to Last Click
3
3
1
0
Interleaving
6
0
6
0
•Comparison of arXiv.org experiments
•Results on Yahoo! qualitatively similar
[Radlinski et al. 2008; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Often more
reliable &
sensitive
Interpretation Choices
Often
more
reusable
Often
what you
actually
want
Document Level
Ranking Level
Absolute
Relative
Click Rate,
Cascade Model,
…
Click/Skip,
FairPairs
Best understood
& most reusable
Abandonment,
Reciprocal Rank,
Time to Click,
PSkip,
…
Side by Side,
Interleaving
Returning to Interleaving
• Quantitatively compared Interleaving to a
number of absolute online metrics
– Interleaving appears more reliable
– Interleaving appears more sensitive
• What about relative to offline (expert)
judgments?
– Does Interleaving agree with experts?
– How many clicks need to be observed relative to
judged queries?
Calibration with Offline Judgments
• Experiments on Bing (large scale experiment)
• Plotted interleaving preference vs NDCG difference
• Good calibration between expert judgments and interleaving
• I.e., magnitude preserving
[Radlinski & Craswell 2010; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Comparison with Offline Judgments
• Experiments on Bing (large-scale experiment)
• Plotted queries required vs expert judgments required (for different p-values)
• Linear relationship between queries and expert judgments required
• One expert judgment is worth ~10 queries
[Radlinski & Craswell 2010; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Summary of Ranking-Level
Quantitative Analysis
• Interleaving is reliable
– Consistent & calibrated expert judgments
• Interleaving is sensitive
– Requires fewer queries to achieve significance
– For Bing: 1 judgment = ~10 queries
• Not easily reusable or interpretable
– Each evaluation requires new online experiment
• Similar limitation to methods for efficient offline evaluation, e.g.,
[Carterette et al. 2006; Carterette & Smucker 2007]
– Hard to say more than Ranking A > Ranking B
More In-Depth Analysis
• Other usage patterns reflect more than relevance
– Click entropy for personalization [Teevan et al. 2008]
– Revisitations to detect “bookmarking” and long-term
interests [Adar et al. 2008]
– Spikes in queries and clicks [Kulkarni et al. 2011]
• This enables more detailed understanding of users
– Can design specific changes to better service such specific
types of information needs
– Typically requires larger scale usage data
– Requires more careful experimental design
• Related tutorial: “Design of Large Scale Log Analysis
Studies” by Dumais et al, at HCIC 2010
Summary of Part 1
• Considered online versus offline evaluation
– Under which conditions is each better
• With online data
– Compared absolute & relative interpretations
– Compared document level & ranking level
interpretations
• Part 2 will show you how to collect data and
apply these methods yourself
Practical Online Retrieval Evaluation
Part 2
Filip Radlinski (Microsoft)
Yisong Yue (CMU)
Outline
• Part 1 : Overview of Online Evaluation
• Part 2: End-to-End, From Design to Analysis
– Setting up a search service
– Getting your own data
– Running online experiments
(Break during Part 2)
• Part 3: Open Problems in Click Evaluation
• Part 4: Connection to Optimization & Learning
Information
Your
Systems
System!
A Recipe
0. Come up with a new retrieval algorithm
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Create logging infrastructure
Create reranking infrastructure
Recruit some users
Wait for data
Analyze Results
6. Write a paper
User behavior we can record
• Queries & results
– Context as well: Which computer & when
• Clicks on results
– Metadata: What order, dwell time
• The same methods can be used to observe
– Query reformulations
– Browsing of result site
• With some more work
– Mouse movements, text selection, tabs, etc …
Being the Search Engine
• To get real data, we need real users
– Need to implement an IR system that people want to use …
– … without having to break their normal routine
– Then convince some people to actually do it
• Benefits
– Real users & data!
• Challenges
–
–
–
–
Make the system usable (hint: start by using it yourself)
Effective data collection
Make it easy to run evaluation experiments
Important consideration: Privacy & Human Subjects
A spectrum of possible approaches
• Web proxy
– Intercept, record & modify results before they get to the client
• Browser toolbar
– Intercept and modify the page the browser gets
• Search engine on top of a public search API
– Fetch results from a search API, build your own results page
– Or fetch results page like a proxy, but serve it yourself
• Your own search engine
– Many tools exist to get you most of the way there
– Direct access to index, generate any rankings
– Usually for a special collection: arXiv.org, CiteSeer, PubMed, …
A spectrum of possible approaches
Method
Proxy
Easy to
Easy
get
on/off?
users
Easy to
observe
Robust
All web
traffic

Runs
on …
server
Amount Changes
of work are easy


How easy is it for a
What happens
Can you get some
Toolbar
Everything
client

user to remember
when you find
Howyou
likely are you to
volunteers to spend 5 What data can
Do you need
Is this
tosomething
set
you
that you’re logging
a bug just after
need to actively keep
minutes to be set up, (the researcher)
up a special
canserver?
do before lunch?
things? Can they Our
just queries
tweaking
it?
then
regularly
use
it
easily
record?
Search API
server
 setting up the
turn it off for a & clicks
20th user?
without thinking?
minute?
Write an
Our queries
server 
engine
& clicks








Demo Application
Some easy to use academic research systems
Building a Proxy
• Intercepting traffic is easy
– All you need are representative users
– … who don’t mind sharing their traffic with you
• Four parts to a proxy:
– Intercepting search engine requests
– Logging queries & results
– Logging clicks on results
– Substituting in your own search engine results
Intercepting search engine requests
Data Logging
& Experimentation
• Write a proxy, e.g. in Perl. Its REALLY EASY!
• Set volunteers’ browsers to use this proxy
Logging clicks
Get request metadata
we want to log this request
Then log it
Logging queries & results
we want to log this request
Get the metadata
Parse the results
Modifying results
Get the original results
Rerank them
Set up the evaluation
Replace the old results with your new set
Demo!
Other approaches
• Browser toolbar
– All modern browsers support custom toolbars
– They are relatively straightforward to write
– Lemur toolkit [lemurproject.org] has open source toolbars to start with.
Another starting point is AlterEgo [Matthijs & Radlinski ’10]
– GreaseMonkey is another way to do limited logging & rewriting
• Use a search API
–
–
–
–
Bing, Google, Yahoo! all offer search APIs
Many non-web-search engines (twitter, Facebook, etc) also offer APIs
You can treat a regular search page as an API of sorts, parsing the results
ViewSer [Lagun & Agichtein ‘11] is one example of a fetch-and-serve
implementation (also shows an example of how to do mouse position tracking)
• Build your own search engine
– Easy to use libraries: Lucene (java), Lucene.Net (C#)
– Easy to run-on engines: Indri, Lucene, Terrier, Zettair, and many more
Designing interleaving experiment
Get the original results
Rerank them
Replace the old results with your new set
Randomly choose which Ranker picks next
Case 1: Ranker A chooses, then Ranker B chooses
Case 2: Ranker B chooses, then Ranker A chooses
Check for shared results
Repeat until 10
results chosen
Demo!
So far in our recipe
0. Come up with a reranking system
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Create logging infrastructure
Create reranking infrastructure
Recruit some users
Wait for data
Analyze Results
Recruiting Users
Questions to ask when recruiting
1. Are you using the system yourself?
• If not, why not?
2. Will your users find the system usable?
• A little worse than the default is ok
• A little slower than the default is ok
• A little less reliable than the default is ok
… but never by too much
3. Are you collecting private data?
• Do you really need to?
• What will you do with it?
4. Is your user base representative?
What to ask of your users
• Recall the three study setup alternatives
– Controlled task lab study
– Controlled task, uncontrolled environment
– General uncontrolled retrieval tasks
• The right setup depends on the research question
– Will users naturally enter a sufficient number of queries that
you want to improve?
• For example, for long question queries
– Do you need additional metadata about users?
• For example, for personalization
– Is there a natural place this system should be deployed?
• For example, on a computer in your building lobby?
Analyzing the Results
• We have collected data of the form:
<query> <results> <metadata>
and <clicks> <associated query>
• We want to group those into
<query> <metadata> <clicks>
• And evaluate how often each retrieval function wins
<query 1> <which ranking won>
<query 2> <which ranking won>
…
• Finally, we can see if the retrieval functions are different,
statistically significantly.
Significance Testing
• The simplest test: Sign Test
• Suppose:
– The baseline won interleaving on 120 queries
– Your ranking won interleaving on 140 queries
– Is your ranking significantly better? [here: no]
• Statistical tests:
– Run a sign test in your favorite software
– Use a Binomial confidence interval
p = 𝑝 ± 𝑧𝛼
𝑝(1 − 𝑝)
𝑛
Significance Testing
• We can also test the power (or consistency) of
the evaluation methodology
– (Bootstrap Sampling)
• Given set of logged queries Q = {q1,…,qn}
– Sample k queries Q’ from Q with replacement
• k≤n
• A “bag”
– Compute whether r1 wins in Q’
– Repeat m times
• Power (consistency) is fraction of bags that agree
[Efron & Tibshirani 1993]
Significance Testing
• Example: log 4 queries Q = {
q1
q2
q3
q4
}
[Efron & Tibshirani 1993]
Significance Testing
• Example: log 4 queries Q = {
q1
q2
}
q4
• Generate m bootstrap samples
q1
q1
q3
q4
– Sample w/ replacement
– Record who wins each sample
q4
q1
q4
q2
q3
q1
q3
q3
q2
q4
…
q3
q3
q2
[Efron & Tibshirani 1993]
Significance Testing
• Example: log 4 queries Q = {
q1
}
q3
q4
• Generate m bootstrap samples
q1
q1
q3
q4
– Sample w/ replacement
– Record who wins each sample
q4
q1
q4
q2
q3
q1
q3
q3
…
• E.g., r1 wins in 74% of samples
q2
q2
q4
q3
– Suppose we know r1 > r2
– We’d make the wrong conclusion 26% of the time
– More queries = higher confidence (more consistent)
q2
[Efron & Tibshirani 1993]
Significance Testing
• Many other statistical tests exist
– Assumes a dataset sample from a population
• Query logs with clicks
– Tests on a measured quantity
• Each query has signed score indicating preference
• Is the aggregate score noticeably different from 0?
– More sensitive binomial tests
– t-Test
– Also see [Smucker et al., 2009] for another comparison of various
statistical tests
Evaluation Demo
Summary of Part 2
• Provided a recipe for evaluation
–
–
–
–
Blind test, minimally disruptive of natural usage context
A number of implementation alternatives reviewed
Proxy implementation presented
Demonstration of logging, interleaving, and analysis
• Interleaving reference implementation
– Combining document rankings
– Credit assignment
• Overview of significance testing
Practical Online Retrieval Evaluation
Part 3
Filip Radlinski (Microsoft)
Yisong Yue (CMU)
Outline
• Part 1 : Overview of Online Evaluation
• Part 2: End-to-End, From Design to Analysis
(Break during Part 2)
• Part 3: Open Problems in Click Evaluation
–
–
–
–
Alternative interleaving algorithms
Challenges in click interpretation
Other sources of presentation bias
Learning better click weighting
• Part 4: Connection to Optimization & Learning
Alternative Interleaving Algorithms
• Goals of interleaving
– Paired test to maximize sensitivity
– Fair comparison to maximize reliability
• There are multiple ways to interleave rankings
– We saw Team-Draft Interleaving in Part 2.
– Another way is Balanced Interleaving
– Other methods exist, e.g., [He et al. 2009; Hofmann et al. 2011b]
• There are multiple ways to assign credit for clicks
– We’ll see what the parameters are
Balanced Interleaving
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ranking A
Ranking B
Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
1. Napa Country, California – Wikipedia
www.napavalley.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
Napa Valley Wineries - Plan your wine...
2. Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
www.napavalley.com
Napa Valley College
3. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Been There | Tips | Napa Valley
4. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/16681 Presented Ranking www.napalinks.com
Napa Valley Wineries and1.Wine
5. for
NapaValley.org
Napa Valley – The authority
lodging...
www.napavintners.com
www.napavalley.org
www.napavalley.com
Napa Country, California –2.Wikipedia
The Napa Valley Marathon
Napa Country, California 6.
– Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
www.napavalleymarathon.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
3. Napa Valley Wineries – Plan your wine...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
4. Napa Valley College
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
5. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
6. Been There | Tips | Napa Valley
www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/16681
7. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
[Joachims ‘02]
www.napalinks.com
Balanced Interleaving
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ranking A
Ranking B Winner!
Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
1. Napa Country, California – Wikipedia
www.napavalley.com
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
Napa Valley Wineries - Plan your wine...
2. Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
www.napavalley.com
Napa Valley College
3. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Been There | Tips | Napa Valley
4. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/16681 Presented Ranking www.napalinks.com
Napa Valley Wineries and1.Wine
5. for
NapaValley.org
Napa Valley – The authority
lodging...
www.napavintners.com
www.napavalley.org
www.napavalley.com
Napa Country, California –2.Wikipedia
The Napa Valley Marathon
Napa Country, California 6.
– Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
www.napavalleymarathon.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
3. Napa Valley Wineries
[ – Plan your wine...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
4. Napa Valley College
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
5. Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
6. Been There | Tips | Napa Valley
www.ivebeenthere.co.uk/tips/16681
7. Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
[Joachims ‘02]
www.napalinks.com
Biases in Interleaving
• Different interleaving approaches exhibit
different properties in various corner cases
• Would random clicking consistently prefer one
ranking over another?
• Would rational clicking consistently prefer one
ranking over another equally good one?
Random Clicking is subtle
Ranking A
Ranking B
Balanced Interleaving
Ranking A wins
Ranking B wins
Ranking A wins
Random clicks
A wins 2/3 of the time
Random Clicking is subtle
Ranking A
Ranking B
Balanced Interleaving
Ranking B wins
Ranking A wins
Ranking A wins
Random clicks
A wins 2/3 of the time, again
This affects Balanced, but not Team Draft interleaving
Rational Clicking is subtle
One Query, Three Intents
Ranking A
Ranking B
49 %
49 %
98% happy
2%
Team Draft Interleaving
Coin Tosses:
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
B
A gets 50%
A gets 49%
A gets 50%
A gets 49%
Ranking B is better?
51% happy
Biases in Interleaving
• Both interleaving algorithms can be broken
– These are contrived edge cases
– If each edge case prefers for each ranker equally
often, it doesn’t affect the outcome
• These cases seem to have low impact across
many real experiments
• Open problem: Does there exist an interleaving
algorithm not subject to such edge cases?
Clicks versus Relevance
• Presentation bias affects clicks
– Interleaving addresses position bias
– Are there other important biasing effects?
• Sometimes clicks ≠ relevance
– Sometimes the answer is in the snippet
– Otherwise, a click is the expectation of relevance
• Some snippets are misleading
– How do we define relevance?
• What people click on, or what the query means?
• Result attractiveness also plays a role
Attractiveness Bias
• Does the third result look more relevant?
– i.e., judging a book by its cover
• Maybe 3rd result attracted more attention
– It contains more words, more bolded query terms
[Yue et al. 2010a]
Recall: Document Level Comparisons
• Randomly reorder pairs of documents
• Measure which is clicked more frequently
when shown at lower rank
Half the time, show:
The other half, show:
Document 1
Document 2
Document 2
What happens
Document 1
more often?
[Radlinski & Joachims ‘07]
Bias due to Bolding in Title
Rank Pair
• Click frequency on adjacent results (randomly swapped)
• Click data collected from Google web search
• Bars should be equal if not biased
 Suggests a method to correct for attractiveness bias
[Yue et al. 2010a]
Credit Assignment
• Not all clicks are created equal
– Most click evaluation usually just counts clicks as binary
events
– Clicks can be weighted based on order, time spent, position…
• Example: Interleaved query session with 2 clicks
– One click at rank 1 (from ranking A)
– Later click at rank 4 (from ranking B)
– Normally would count this query session as a tie
Credit Assignment
• Clicks need not be weighted equally in Interleaving
evaluation
• Take this Team Draft interleaving:
A
(this click was very likely)
B
A
B
(yet the user clicked again)
• Is this a tie, or should Ranking B actually win here?
– Rather than making something up, lets look at some data
Credit Assignment
• A simple test:
A
– Suppose you saw many queries
– How often does a small subsample
agree
on the experiment outcome?
Amount of
Get the “right”
– Moredata
sensitive assignment
should
outcome sooner
agree more often
B
A
B
[Radlinski & Craswell, 2010]
Learning a Better Credit Assignment
• Represent each click as a feature vector  ( q, c)
1 always




1
if
click
led
to
download



 (q, c)   1 if last click for this query


1 if higher rank than previous click 




• The score of a click is w   (q, c)

– How do we learn the optimal w ?
[Yue et al. 2010b; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Learning a Better Credit Assignment
 1 if c is last click, 0 otherwise 
 ( q, c )  

1
if
c
is
not
last
click,
0
otherwise



• w   (q, c) differentiates last clicks and other clicks
[Yue et al. 2010b; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Learning a Better Credit Assignment
 1 if c is last click, 0 otherwise 
 ( q, c )  

1
if
c
is
not
last
click,
0
otherwise



• w   (q, c) differentiates last clicks and other clicks
• Suppose we interleave A vs B
• Lets suppose that:
– On average there are 3 clicks per session
– The last click is on A 60% of the time
– The other 2 clicks split 50/50 random
[Yue et al. 2010b; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Learning a Better Credit Assignment
 1 if c is last click, 0 otherwise 
 ( q, c )  

1
if
c
is
not
last
click,
0
otherwise



• w   (q, c) differentiates last clicks and other clicks
• Suppose we interleave A vs B
• Lets suppose that:
– On average there are 3 clicks per session
– The last click is on A 60% of the time
– The other 2 clicks split 50/50 random
• Normal weighting corresponds to w = [1 1]
• A weighting vector w = [1 0] has much lower variance
[Yue et al. 2010b; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Data Required
Experimental Test
Uniform click weighting
Learning approaches
Target p-value
• Click data collected from ArXiv.org with two known rankers
• Learned weights let you obtain the same significance level
with fewer queries
• However, the calibration results from Part 2 no longer hold
[Yue et al. 2010b; Chapelle et al. (under review)]
Other Click Evaluation Challenges
• Clicks on different documents are only equally meaningful if
they get the same attention
– E.g. documents with different length snippets
– E.g. a mix of text, images and video
• Evaluating for diversity
– Suppose the goal is to diversify search results
– Some types of intents might be preferentially not clicked
– Two differently diverse lists, if interleaved, may end up less diverse
• Beyond rankings
– Evaluating results in a grid (e.g. images)
– Evaluating faceted search rankings (e.g. shopping)
• Beyond evaluation: How to optimize the system?
Summary of Part 3
• Subtleties/imperfections in interleaving
– Different interleaving methods exhibit different behavior
– Interpretation can be improved by weighting clicks
• Part 1 focused on position bias
– Should be aware of other sources of bias (e.g., title bias)
• Alternative click weighting was explored
– Provide more sensitive evaluation for interleaving
– But you lose the calibration results shown in Part 1
– Not limited to interleaving: Any online evaluation could do
something similar
Practical Online Retrieval Evaluation
Part 4
Filip Radlinski (Microsoft)
Yisong Yue (CMU)
Outline
• Part 1 : Overview of Online Evaluation
• Part 2: End-to-End, From Design to Analysis
(Break during Part 2)
• Part 3: Open Problems in Click Evaluation
• Part 4: Connection to Optimization & Learning
– Deriving training data from pairwise preferences
– Document-level vs ranking-level feedback
– Machine learning approaches that use pairwise prefs.
From Evaluation to Optimization
• Evaluation is only half the battle
• We want better information retrieval systems!
• Conclude with brief overview of machine
learning approaches that leverage implicit
feedback
Optimization
Two general ways of optimizing
1. Start with collection of retrieval functions
– Pick best one based on user feedback
2. Start with parameterized retrieval function
– Pick best parameters based on user feedback
Optimization Criterion
• We need to an optimization goal
• Our goal is simple: maximize an evaluation
metric!
• Leverage techniques we’ve seen for deriving
judgments from usage data
– Convert into deriving training data for machine
learning algorithms
Absolute Judgments
Trivial conversion to Cranfield style training
– Covered in Machine Learning for IR tutorial this
morning
Derived judgments
Rel(D1) = 1
Rel(D2) = 0
Rel(D3) = 0
…
Agichtein et al. 2006b
Carterette & Jones 2007
Chapelle & Zhang 2009
Bennett et al. 2011
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
Presented Ranking
Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
www.napavalley.com
Napa Country, California – Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Napa Valley Wineries – Plan your wine...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.napalinks.com
Napa Balley College
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
NapaValley.org
www.napavalley.org
Reliable Training Data
• We’ll mainly focus on pairwise online data
– If pairwise evaluation is more sensitive, can we
derive training data using pairwise approaches?
• Two approaches:
– Document-level feedback
– Ranking-level feedback (interleaving two rankings)
Outline of Approaches
Document-level
Judgments
Ranking-level
Judgments
Select the Best
Retrieval Function
from a Collection
1
3
Optimize a
Parameterized
Retrieval Function
2
4
Document-level Training Data
• Recall from Part 1:
– Users tend to look at results above clicked result
– Users sometimes look at one below clicked result
• Derived judgments
–
–
–
–
–
D5 > D2
D5 > D3
D5 > D4
D1 > D2
D5 > D6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
[Joachims et al. 2007]
7
Presented Ranking
Napa Valley – The authority for lodging...
www.napavalley.com
Napa Country, California – Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napa_Valley
Napa: The Story of an American Eden...
books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=...
Napa Valley Wineries – Plan your wine...
www.napavalley.com/wineries
Napa Valley Hotels – Bed and Breakfast...
www.napalinks.com
Napa Balley College
www.napavalley.edu/homex.asp
NapaValley.org
www.napavalley.org
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Measure utility of ranking function r:
– U(r) = # of pairwise judgments ranked correctly
– Summed over all derived (q, d+, d-) tuples
• Derived judgments
–
–
–
–
–
D1 > D2
D5 > D2
D5 > D3
D5 > D4
D5 > D6
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Measure utility of ranking function r:
– U(r) = # of pairwise judgments ranked correctly
– Summed over all derived (q, d+, d-) tuples
• Derived judgments
–
–
–
–
–
D1 > D2
D5 > D2
D5 > D3
D5 > D4
D5 > D6
U(r) =
+
+
+
+
1[ r(q,D1) > r(q,D2) ]
1[ r(q,D5) > r(q,D2) ]
1[ r(q,D5) > r(q,D3) ]
1[ r(q,D5) > r(q,D4) ]
1[ r(q,D5) > r(q,D6) ]
I.e., classification accuracy on pairwise judgments!
Similar to pSkip objective [Wang et al. 2009]
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Case 1. Collection of retrieval functions {r1,…,rk}
– Choose ri with highest U(ri)
• Example:
–
–
–
–
–
Three retrieval functions r1, r2, r3
U(r1) = 100
U(r2) = 250
U(r3) = 175
Conclusion: r2 is best
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Case 2. Parameterized retrieval function r(q,d;w)
– Choose w with highest U(r)
– Often optimize w over a smooth approximation of U(r)
• Recall U(r) is just classification accuracy on pairwise judgments
– Can use SVM, Logistic Regression, etc.
• E.g., Joachims 2002; Freund et al. 2003; Radlinski & Joachims 2005;
Burges et al. 2005
• Example: logistic regression
arg max
w


log
1

e

( q ,d  ,d  )
 wT  ( q , d  )  wT  ( q , d  )


Document-level Judgments (Extensions)
• Relative preferences across query reformulations
• Clicked doc more relevant than earlier unclicked doc
– “Query Chains”
Derived documentlevel judgments:
B>A
B>C
D>A
D>C
D>E
q1
q2
A
D
B
E
C
F
• Requires mechanism for segment query sessions
• Simple 30 minute timeout worked well on Cornell Library
[Radlinski & Joachims 2005]
Document-level Judgments (Extensions)
• Recall from Part 1: Most pairwise judgments go
against current ranking
– E.g., cannot derive judgment that higher ranked result is
better than lower ranked result
• Solution: swap 2 adjacent results w/ prob. 50%
– E.g., interleave two results
– “FairPairs”
– Only store judgment between
paired results (e.g., D1 > D2)
50%
50%
D1
D2
D2
D1
D3
D3
[Radlinski & Joachims 2006; 2007; Craswell et al. 2008]
Document-level Judgments (Summary)
• Derive pairwise judgments between documents
• Often more reliable than absolute judgments
– Also supported by experiments on collecting expert judgments
[Carterette et al. 2008]
• Benefits: reliable & easily reusable
– Often gives “correct” (in expectation) feedback
– Easy to convert into training data for standard ML algorithms
• Limitations: still a biased sample
– Distribution of feedback slanted towards top of rankings
Ranking-level Training Data
• In Part 2, we evaluated pairs of retrieval functions by
interleaving rankings
• Use directly as derived judgments for optimization
– Interleave r1 and r2
– Derive U(r1) > U(r2) or vice versa
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Case 1. Collection of retrieval functions {r1,…,rk}
– Choose ri that wins interleaving comparisons vs rest
• Example:
– Three retrieval functions r1, r2, r3
– U(r1) > U(r2)
– U(r1) > U(r3)
– U(r2) > U(r3)
– r1 is best retrieval func.
Interleaving Winner (% clicks)
r1 vs r2
r1
(60%)
r1 vs r3
r1
(75%)
r2 vs r3
r2
(65%)
[Feige et al. 1997; Yue et al. 2009; 2011]
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Case 1. Collection of retrieval functions {r1,…,rk}
– Choose ri that wins interleaving comparisons vs rest
• Example:
Only need r1 vs r2 and r1 vs r3!
What is cost of comparing r2 vs r3?
– Three retrieval functions r1, r2, r3
– U(r1) > U(r2)
– U(r1) > U(r3)
– U(r2) > U(r3)
– r1 is best retrieval func.
Interleaving Winner (% clicks)
r1 vs r2
r1
(60%)
r1 vs r3
r1
(75%)
r2 vs r3
r2
(65%)
[Feige et al. 1997; Yue et al. 2009; 2011]
Derived Judgments as Optimization Criterion
• Case 2. Parameterized retrieval function r(w)
– Choose w with highest U(r(w))
– Interleaving reveals relative values of U(r(w)) vs U(r(w’))
• Approach: gradient descent via interleaving
– Make a perturbation w’ from w
– Interleave r(w) vs r(w’)
– If r(w’) wins, replace w = w’
[Yue & Joachims 2009; Hofmann et al. 2011a]
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Current point
Losing candidate
Winning candidate
Dueling Bandit Gradient Descent
Ranking-level Judgments (Summary)
• Derive pairwise judgments between rankings
– Directly measures relative quality between two rankings
– I.e., U(r) > U(r’) ??
– Fewer assumptions about the form of U(r)
• Benefits: reliable & unbiased feedback
– Interleaving samples from the distribution of queries and users
• Drawbacks: not easily reusable
– Evaluating each pair requires new interleaving experiment
– Should model cost of running an interleaving experiment
Summary of Approaches
Document-level
Judgments
Ranking-level
Judgments
Select the Best
Retrieval Function
from a Collection
•Define utility based on pairs
ranked correctly
•Select retrieval function with
highest utility
•Treat interleaving as
comparison oracle
•Similar to running a
tournament
Optimize a
Parameterized
Retrieval Function
•Treat as classification
•Judgments are training
labels between pairs
•Train w/ standard methods
•Treat interleaving as
comparison oracle
•Can be used to estimate a
gradient in parameter space
Summary of Approaches
Document-level
Judgments
Ranking-level
Judgments
Select the Best
Retrieval Function
from a Collection
•Define utility based on pairs
ranked correctly
•Select retrieval function with
highest utility
•Treat interleaving as
comparison oracle
•Similar to running a
tournament
Optimize a
Parameterized
Retrieval Function
•Treat as classification
•Judgments are training
labels between pairs
•Train w/ standard methods
•Treat interleaving as
comparison oracle
•Can be used to estimate a
gradient in parameter space
*More popular
Other Approaches
• Usage data as features
– E.g., clickthrough rate as feature of a result
é
cos(d, q)
ê
ê cos(title(d), q)
ê pagerank(d)
j (d, q) = ê
ê ctr@1(d, q)
ê
age(d)
ê
êë
ù
ú
ú
ú
ú
ú
ú
ú
úû
– Use expert judgments as training data (Cranfield-style)
– E.g., [Agichtein et al. 2006a; Chapelle & Zhang 2009; Wang et al. 2009]
Other Approaches
Other forms of usage data
• Browsing data
– “The documents users browse to after issuing a query are
relevant documents for that query.”
– Teevan et al. 2005; Liu et al. 2008; Bilenko & White 2008
• Mouse movements
– “The search results that users mouse over often are
relevant documents for that query”
– Guo et al. 2006a; 2006b; Huang et al. 2011
Summary of Part 4
• Ultimate goal: Find the best retrieval system
– Evaluation is only half the battle
• ML approach to optimization
• Reviewed methods for deriving training data
– Focused on pairwise/relative feedback
Tutorial Summary
• Provided an overview of online evaluation
– Online metrics: What works when (especially if you’re an academic)
– Interpreting user actions at the Document or Ranking level
– Experiment Design: Opportunities, biases and challenges
• Showed how to get started obtaining your own online data
– How to realistically “be the search engine”
– End-to-End: Design, Implementation, Recruitment and Analysis
– Overview of alternative approaches
• Presented interleaving for retrieval evaluation
–
–
–
–
Described one particular online evaluation approach in depth
How it works, why it works and what to watch out for
Provide a reference implementation
Describe a number of open challenges
• Quick overview of using your online data for learning
Questions?
Acknowledgments
• We thank Thorsten Joachims, Nick Craswell, Matt Lease, Yi Zhang, and the
anonymous reviewers for providing valuable feedback.
• We thank Eugene Agichtein, Ben Carterette, Olivier Chapelle, Nick
Craswell, and Thorsten Joachims for providing slide material.
• Yisong Yue was funded in part by ONR (PECASE) N000141010672.
Bibliography
•
1
Interleaving Algorithms & Evaluation
– 1.1
•
•
•
•
•
– 1.2
•
•
•
•
•
Producing interleaved rankings
JOACHIMS, T. 2002. Optimizing Search Engines Using Clickthrough Data. In Proceedings of the ACM
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).pp 132–142.
JOACHIMS, T. 2003. Evaluating Retrieval Performance using Clickthrough Data. In Text Mining, J.
Franke, G. Nakhaeizadeh, and I. Renz, Eds. Physica/Springer Verlag, 7996.
RADLINSKI, F., KURUP, M., AND JOACHIMS, T. 2008. How Does Clickthrough Data Reflect Retrieval
Quality. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM).
RADLINSKI, F., KURUP, M., AND JOACHIMS, T. 2010. Evaluating search engine relevance with clickbased metrics. In Preference Learning, J. Fuernkranz and E. Huellermeier, Eds. Springer, pp 337–362.
CHAPELLE, O., JOACHIMS, T., RADLINSKI, F., YUE, Y. (under review) Large Scale Validation and Analysis
of Interleaved Search Evaluation.
Alternative scoring approaches & Statistical tests
CHAPELLE, O., JOACHIMS, T., RADLINSKI, F., YUE, Y. (under review) Large Scale Validation and Analysis
of Interleaved Search Evaluation.
EFRON, B., TIBSHIRANI, R. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, CRC Monographs
on Statistics & Applied Probability.
RADLINSKI, F. AND CRASWELL, N. 2010. Comparing the sensitivity of information retrieval metrics. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information
Retrieval (SIGIR).pp 667–674.
SMUCKER, M. AND ALLAN, J. AND CARTERETTE, B. 2009. Agreement Among Statistical Significance
Tests for Information Retrieval Evaluation at Varying Sample Sizes. In Proceedings of the ACM
International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
YUE, Y. AND GAO, Y. AND CHAPELLE, O., ZHANG, Y., AND JOACHIMS, T. 2010. Click-Based Retrieval
Evaluation. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
– 1.3
•
•
•
•
•
2
Examples of other work that uses interleaving to evaluate rankings
RADLINSKI, F. AND JOACHIMS, T. 2005. Query chains: Learning to rank from implicit feedback. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
MATTHIJS, N. AND RADLINSKI, F. 2011. Personalizing Web Search using Long Term Browsing History. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM).
HE, J. AND ZHAI, C. AND LI, X. 2009. Evaluation of methods for relative comparison of retrieval systems
based on clickthroughs. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management (CIKM).
HOFMANN, K. AND WHITESON, S. AND DE RIJKE, M. 2011. A Probabilistic Method for Inferring
Preferences from Clicks. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management (CIKM).
Clicks in General
– 2.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Click based evaluation
AGICHTEIN, E., BRILL, E., DUMAIS, S., AND RAGNO, R. 2006. Learning user inter- action models for
prediction web search results preferences. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
BENNETT, P., RADLINSKI, F., WHITE, R., YILMAZ, E. 2011.
Inferring and Using Location
Metadata to Personalize Web Search. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
CARTERETTE, B. AND JONES, R. 2007. Evaluating search engines by modeling the relationship between
relevance and clicks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Neural
Information Processing Systems (NIPS).
CHAPELLE, O., ZHANG, Y., METZLER, D., AND GRINSPAN, P. 2009. Expected Reciprocal Rank for Graded
Relevance. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
(CIKM).
CHAPELLE, O. AND ZHANG, Y. 2009. A dynamic bayesian network click model for web search ranking. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW).pp 1–10.
CRASWELL, N., ZOETER, O., TAYLOR, M., AND RAMSEY, B. 2008. An experimental comparison of click
position-bias models. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data
Mining (WSDM).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DUPRET, G., AND LIAO, C., 2010. A model to estimate intrinsic document relevance from the
clickthrough logs of a web search engine. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web
Search and Data Mining (WSDM).
DUPRET, G., AND PIWOWARSKI, B. 2008. A User Browsing Model to Predict Search Engine Click Data
from Past Observations. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
JOACHIMS, T., GRANKA, L., PAN, B., HEMBROOKE, H., RADLINSKI, F., AND GAY, G. 2007. Evaluating the
accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM Transactions
on Information Science (TOIS) 25 (2). Article 7.
JOACHIMS, T., GRANKA, L., PAN, B., HEMBROOKE, H., GAY, G. 2005. Accurately Interpreting
Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
RADLINSKI, F., BENNETT, P., AND YILMAZ, E. 2011. Detecting Duplicate Web Documents using
Clickthrough Data. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data
Mining (WSDM).
RADLINSKI, F., JOACHIMS, T. 2007. Active Exploration for Learning Rankings from Clickthrough Data. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
THOMAS, P., HAWKING, D. 2008. Experiences evaluating personal metasearch. In Proceedings of the
Information Interaction in Context Conference (IIiX).
WANG, K., WALKER, T., AND ZHENG, Z. 2009. PSkip: estimating relevance ranking quality from web
search clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery
and Data Mining (KDD).pp 1355–1364.
YUE, Y., PATEL, R., AND ROEHRIG, H. 2010a. Beyond Position Bias: Examining Result Attractiveness as a
Source of Presentation Bias in Clickthrough Data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
the World Wide Web (WWW).
ZHANG, W., JONES, R. 2007. Comparing Click Logs and Editorial Labels for Training Query Rewriting. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW).
ZHONG, F., WANG, D., WANG, G., WEIZHU, C., ZHANG, Y., CHEN, Z., WANG, H. 2010. Incorporating
Post-Click Behaviors into a Click Model. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
– 2.2
•
•
– 2.3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Limitations of clicks
YUE, Y., PATEL, R., AND ROEHRIG, H. 2010a. Beyond Position Bias: Examining Result Attractiveness as a
Source of Presentation Bias in Clickthrough Data. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
the World Wide Web (WWW).
LI, J., HUFFMAN, S., TOKUDA, A. 2009. Good Abandonment in Mobile and PC Internet Search. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information
Retrieval (SIGIR).
Clicks as features
AGICHTEIN, E., BRILL, E., DUMAIS, S., AND RAGNO, R. 2006a. Learning user interaction models for
prediction web search results preferences. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
AGICHTEIN, E., BRILL, E., AND DUMAIS, S. 2006b. Improving Web Search Ranking by Incorporating User
Behavior Information. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
CHAPELLE, O. AND ZHANG, Y. 2009. A dynamic bayesian network click model for web search ranking. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on the World Wide Web (WWW).pp 1–10.
GAO, J., YUAN, W., LI, X., DENG, K., AND NIE, J. 2009. Smoothing clickthrough data for web search
ranking. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
JI, S., ZHOU, K., LIAO, C., ZHENG, Z., XUE, G., CHAPELLE, O., SUN, G., AND ZHA, H. 2009. Global Ranking
by Exploiting User Clicks. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
TEEVAN, J., DUMAIS, S., LIEBLING, D. 2008. To Personalize or Not to Personalize: Modeling Queries
with Variation in User Intent. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
WANG, K., WALKER, T., AND ZHENG, Z. 2009. PSkip: estimating relevance rank- ing quality from web
search clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery
and Data Mining (KDD).pp 1355–1364.
– 2.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Learning from Clicks
AGRAWAL, R., HALVERSON, A., KENTHAPADI, K., MISHRA, N., AND TSAPARAS, P. 2009. Generating
labels from clicks. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data
Mining (WSDM).pp 172–181.
BOYAN, J., FREITAG, D., AND JOACHIMS, T. 1996. A Machine Learning Architecture for Optimizing Web
Search Engines. Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Internet Based Information Systems.
EL-ARINI, K., VEDA, G., SHAHAF, D., GUESTRIN, C. 2009. Turning down the noise in the blogosphere. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
FEIGE, U., RAGHAVAN, P., PELEG, D., UPFAL. E. 1994. Computing with Noisy Information. SIAM Journal
on Computing 23(5):1001-1018.
HOFMANN, K. AND WHITESON, S. AND DE RIJKE, M. 2011. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in
Learning to Rank Online. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR).
JOACHIMS, T. 2002. Optimizing Search Engines Using Clickthrough Data. In Proceedings of the ACM
International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).pp 132–142.
LI, L., CHU, W., LANGFORD, J., SCHAPIRE, R. 2010. A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news
article recommendation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the World Wide Web
(WWW).
RADLINSKI, F. AND JOACHIMS, T. 2005. Query chains: Learning to rank from implicit feedback. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
RADLINSKI, F., JOACHIMS, J. 2007. Active Exploration for Learning Rankings from Clickthrough Data. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
RADLINSKI, F., KLEINBERG, R., AND JOACHIMS, T. 2008. Learning Diverse Rankings with Multi-Armed
Bandits. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
SLIVKINS, A., RADLINSKI, F., GOLLAPUDI, S. 2010. Learning optimally diverse rankings over large
document collections. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
YUE, Y., JOACHIMS, T. 2009. Interactively Optimizing Information Retrieval Systems as a Dueling
Bandits Problem. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
YUE, Y., BRODER, J., KLEINBERG, R., JOACHIMS, T.. 2009. The K-Armed Dueling Bandits Problem. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Theory (COLT).
YUE, Y., JOACHIMS, T. 2011. Beat the Mean Bandit. In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Machine Learning (ICML).
•
3
Online Usage Data Beyond Search Clicks
– 3.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
Non-click based metrics
BUSCHER, G., DENGEL, A., AND VAN ELST, L. 2008. Eye movements as implicit relevance feedback. In
Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).pp 2991–2996.
GRANKA, L., JOACHIMS, T. AND GAY, G. 2004. Eye-Tracking Analysis of User Behavior in WWW-Search,
Poster Abstract, In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
HUANG, J., WHITE, R., DUMAIS, S. 2011. No Clicks, No Problem: Using Cursor Movements to
Understand and Improve Search. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (CHI).
KELLY, D. AND TEEVAN, J. 2003. Implicit feedback for inferring user preference: A bibliography. ACM
SIGIR Forum 37, 2, pp 18–28.
GUO, Q., AGICHTEIN, E., 2010. Ready to Buy or Just Browsing? Detecting Web Searcher Goals from
Interaction Data. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development
in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
GUO, Q., AGICHTEIN, E., 2010. Towards Predicting Web Searcher Gaze Position from Mouse
Movements. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).
– 3.2
•
•
•
•
•
Clicks outside of search
BILENKO, M., WHITE, R., RICHARDSON, M., AND Murray, C. 2008. Talking the talk vs. walking the walk:
salience of information needs in querying vs. browsing. In Proceedings of the ACM International
Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
BILENKO, M., WHITE, R. 2008. Mining the Search Trails of Surfing Crowds: Identifying Relevant
Websites From User Activity. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
LIU, Y., GAO, B., LIU, T., ZHANG, Y., Ma, Z., HE, S., AND LI, H. 2008. BrowseRank: letting web users vote
for page importance. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
MATTHIJS, N. AND RADLINSKI, F. 2011. Personalizing Web Search using Long Term Browsing History. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM).
TEEVAN, J., DUMAIS, S., HORVITZ, E., 1995. Personalizing Search via Automated Analysis of Interests
and Activities. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in
Information Retrieval (SIGIR).
•
4
Learning from Pairwise Feedback
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5
BURGES, C., SHAKED, T., RENSHAW, E., LAZIER, A., DEEDS, M., HAMILTON, N., HULLENDER, G. 2005.
Learning to Rank using Gradient Descent. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine
Learning (ICML).
FREUND, Y., IYER, R., SCHAPIRE, R., SINGER, Y. 2003. An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining
Preferences. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), Vol 4, pp 933–969
HOFMANN, K. AND WHITESON, S. AND DE RIJKE, M. 2011. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in
Learning to Rank Online. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR).
JOACHIMS, T. 2005. A Support Vector Method for Multivariate Performance Measures. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
RADLINSKI, F., JOACHIMS, J. 2007. Active Exploration for Learning Rankings from Clickthrough Data. In
Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
Efficient Offline Evaluation
•
CARTERETTE, B., ALLAN, J., SITARAMA, R. 2006. Minimal Test Collections for Retrieval Evaluation. In Proceedings
of the ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR)
•
CARTERETTE, B., BENNETT, P. N., CHICKERING, D. M., AND DUMAIS, S. T. 2008. Here or there:
Preference judgments for relevance. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information
Retrieval (ECIR).
• CARTERETTE, B., SMUCKER, M. 2007. Hypothesis Testing with Incomplete Relevance
Judgments. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge
Management (CIKM).